Can anyone spell ROLLBACK?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you just love silly old John who said that he expected that there would be the odd incident or two while the system was "bedding in"!
Not too far removed from saying that he expected the odd hull loss or two while the system was "bedding in"!
Wonder whether his wife and kids have been doing any regional flying lately?
Not too far removed from saying that he expected the odd hull loss or two while the system was "bedding in"!
Wonder whether his wife and kids have been doing any regional flying lately?
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
amos2,
I think you will find an answer to your question here
Coffs Harbour Advocate - Editorial
link originally posted by ****su-Tonka on 17 Jan
The silence by the many of the chief protagonists of NAS on this and other forums is almost deafening
Wonder whether his wife and kids have been doing any regional flying lately?
Coffs Harbour Advocate - Editorial
link originally posted by ****su-Tonka on 17 Jan
The silence by the many of the chief protagonists of NAS on this and other forums is almost deafening
Like other scribes to this forum, I have been enlightened by the by Voices of Reason thread and congratulate VoR for his/her/their efforts in putting together the information and promoting the discussion. I will not distract from the quality of the discussion on that thread.
Whilst a proponent of airspace “reform” for some years, I, like many others are always concerned when matters like this go “political” because the direction or push for the change takes on a completely different direction, which usually does not fit in with what many may think is in the best interests of the industry or the nation. The national good must come first, not the ego’s of those in power or those that may have influence in those (upper?) circles.
It is tragic that during the course of this project the bending of the truth has become an art form (some call it lies?) and in fact some of the presentations have been in direct conflict with others, sometimes by the same presenter!
The ARG, are a complete farce, with little credibility in terms of airspace design or management experience. Individually they are out of their depth in providing such specialist advice, and as a group they are a joke. Clearly it is there as a vehicle only for the Minister to say he has some experts (in what) to make these decisions or provide him with advice. Some might say it is a vehicle to give Dick a more valid platform for his views? Not once to my knowledge have the ARG presented themselves to the public let alone the industry to justify their views and decisions, which have now been proven to be misguided. The special meeting of the ARG on Monday with the Minister will be interesting and it will take all the political skills of the Minister and his advisors (poor ones at that) to get him out of this mess. Both he and Dick have walked the plank on this one and it will be fascinating to see how far it will bend before it breaks?
The reform of airspace in Australia over the past decade would now have cost close to $50M in my estimates, when you factor in the costs of ASA, CASA, DoTRS etc. ASA would have spent somewhere between $10 and $20m alone. And where have we got?
NOWHERE
One does not have to be very bright to know what the common denominator has been on all of the attempts to date to make changes to Australia’s airspace structure. It’s all about politics, not safety or efficiency or saving costs. Remove the common denominator and we just might see some successful reform?
Not since the AMATS project in the early 90’s has there been anywhere near the amount of education that is required when major change (of any sort) takes place. Mike Smith has said that he is of the belief that the education has been significant, well sorry Mike, but you need to do 4 or 5 times more to get anywhere need the amount needed. One of the reasons that this project is now clearly about to show (yet again) how we can waste money in this country. Education is the key to any change. It is a pity that the proponents of this so called reform don’t seem to understand that and the many associated issues (such as culture) that need to be tackled in the process.
The recent comments of the new CASA boss Bruce Byron are encouraging as it is CASA that has significant responsibility in monitoring the implementation of any change process in aviation. At least he has recognised what many have said for sometime and that is these changes (including the education package) must be set in concrete a minimum of three months prior to the implementation. Common sense I would have thought, but then it went political.
My sources suggest there has been much unrest and concern within CASA and ASA on the direction and methods taken by the NASIG, but they have all been either ignored by DoTRS and it’s senior officers, who perhaps have not made these concerns known to the Minister. Seems they have been told to follow the policy of the Government (or else?). Politics at it’s worst, especially when safety is involved.
The recent incidents were quite predictable and may have been avoided in part if the education had been up to the required level. We can always blame the changes, but I question if more of an issue is the very entrenched culture that we have in Australia and the total failure of NASIG to address it with any success. If the participants don’t want the change and it is not sold to them there is little chance it will ‘take-off’. Many have believed for some time that we already have “world’s best practice” in many of the things we do, so why should we have to change? Politics again I suggest! Certainly VoR has addressed this matter and I believe he is right on the mark.
Not even the USA follows ICAO and has many differences (both notified and others). As those that have been about for some time would know, it is often said that it takes seven (7) years to process changes through ICAO (but I hear it is getting better!). Well, it is also a fact that to make any change in the US is very difficult again because of the very entrenched culture. A response in an international forum, a few years back, when a question was asked relating to when the FAA controllers would start conforming with a particular ICAO recommendation, the answer was that it would be easier to change the ICAO recommendation - that says it all!
Yes, call it rollback if you like, but it is the only clear choice right now. The existing direction is well off the tracks and has little hope of success until there is confidence in the proponents and the political pressure is removed. We have the ability to make significant efficiency gains and comply with most of the ICAO recommendations without the pain of the existing NAS proposals. Let’s do it.
Whilst a proponent of airspace “reform” for some years, I, like many others are always concerned when matters like this go “political” because the direction or push for the change takes on a completely different direction, which usually does not fit in with what many may think is in the best interests of the industry or the nation. The national good must come first, not the ego’s of those in power or those that may have influence in those (upper?) circles.
It is tragic that during the course of this project the bending of the truth has become an art form (some call it lies?) and in fact some of the presentations have been in direct conflict with others, sometimes by the same presenter!
The ARG, are a complete farce, with little credibility in terms of airspace design or management experience. Individually they are out of their depth in providing such specialist advice, and as a group they are a joke. Clearly it is there as a vehicle only for the Minister to say he has some experts (in what) to make these decisions or provide him with advice. Some might say it is a vehicle to give Dick a more valid platform for his views? Not once to my knowledge have the ARG presented themselves to the public let alone the industry to justify their views and decisions, which have now been proven to be misguided. The special meeting of the ARG on Monday with the Minister will be interesting and it will take all the political skills of the Minister and his advisors (poor ones at that) to get him out of this mess. Both he and Dick have walked the plank on this one and it will be fascinating to see how far it will bend before it breaks?
The reform of airspace in Australia over the past decade would now have cost close to $50M in my estimates, when you factor in the costs of ASA, CASA, DoTRS etc. ASA would have spent somewhere between $10 and $20m alone. And where have we got?
NOWHERE
One does not have to be very bright to know what the common denominator has been on all of the attempts to date to make changes to Australia’s airspace structure. It’s all about politics, not safety or efficiency or saving costs. Remove the common denominator and we just might see some successful reform?
Not since the AMATS project in the early 90’s has there been anywhere near the amount of education that is required when major change (of any sort) takes place. Mike Smith has said that he is of the belief that the education has been significant, well sorry Mike, but you need to do 4 or 5 times more to get anywhere need the amount needed. One of the reasons that this project is now clearly about to show (yet again) how we can waste money in this country. Education is the key to any change. It is a pity that the proponents of this so called reform don’t seem to understand that and the many associated issues (such as culture) that need to be tackled in the process.
The recent comments of the new CASA boss Bruce Byron are encouraging as it is CASA that has significant responsibility in monitoring the implementation of any change process in aviation. At least he has recognised what many have said for sometime and that is these changes (including the education package) must be set in concrete a minimum of three months prior to the implementation. Common sense I would have thought, but then it went political.
My sources suggest there has been much unrest and concern within CASA and ASA on the direction and methods taken by the NASIG, but they have all been either ignored by DoTRS and it’s senior officers, who perhaps have not made these concerns known to the Minister. Seems they have been told to follow the policy of the Government (or else?). Politics at it’s worst, especially when safety is involved.
The recent incidents were quite predictable and may have been avoided in part if the education had been up to the required level. We can always blame the changes, but I question if more of an issue is the very entrenched culture that we have in Australia and the total failure of NASIG to address it with any success. If the participants don’t want the change and it is not sold to them there is little chance it will ‘take-off’. Many have believed for some time that we already have “world’s best practice” in many of the things we do, so why should we have to change? Politics again I suggest! Certainly VoR has addressed this matter and I believe he is right on the mark.
Not even the USA follows ICAO and has many differences (both notified and others). As those that have been about for some time would know, it is often said that it takes seven (7) years to process changes through ICAO (but I hear it is getting better!). Well, it is also a fact that to make any change in the US is very difficult again because of the very entrenched culture. A response in an international forum, a few years back, when a question was asked relating to when the FAA controllers would start conforming with a particular ICAO recommendation, the answer was that it would be easier to change the ICAO recommendation - that says it all!
Yes, call it rollback if you like, but it is the only clear choice right now. The existing direction is well off the tracks and has little hope of success until there is confidence in the proponents and the political pressure is removed. We have the ability to make significant efficiency gains and comply with most of the ICAO recommendations without the pain of the existing NAS proposals. Let’s do it.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safer Airspace System
KLN94:
SAS: Safer Airspace System
Atlas Shrugged:
Me too! I am a private pilot who has been against NAS the day it was first mooted and have also contributed extensively on this forum with a view to destroying NAS.
I would sincerely hope that the other professional pilots/controllers on these forums also viewed me as a "professional" pilot even though I only have a VFR rating!
SAS: Safer Airspace System
Atlas Shrugged:
Me too! I am a private pilot who has been against NAS the day it was first mooted and have also contributed extensively on this forum with a view to destroying NAS.
I would sincerely hope that the other professional pilots/controllers on these forums also viewed me as a "professional" pilot even though I only have a VFR rating!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just saw a newsbar headline on ch 7 'sunrise'
Airservices Australia admits problems with new airspace - but no changes.
Can't see any press releases or stories online yet.
Sounds like the spin doc has made a house call; perhaps the real fixes/rollback to be incorporated in a rushed NAS 2c.01?
Especially odd considering the AIPA release 'applaudes [asa's] proposal ... to make significant changes' to NAS.
Airservices Australia admits problems with new airspace - but no changes.
Can't see any press releases or stories online yet.
Sounds like the spin doc has made a house call; perhaps the real fixes/rollback to be incorporated in a rushed NAS 2c.01?
Especially odd considering the AIPA release 'applaudes [asa's] proposal ... to make significant changes' to NAS.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airservices Australia media release
Airservices Australia has previously indicated it is undertaking a review of certain aspects of the National Airspace System introduced in November 2003.
Chief Executive Bernie Smith, in the course of reviewing the NAS operation, said today the corporation had identified that certain governance obligations may not have been met in relation to the NAS 2(b) changes introduced in November 2003.
He also said that when the Board approved the changes they were satisfied the changes were safe.
“Nothing has come to light since then which indicates there are unacceptable risks to safety in the system – but improvements are and will always be considered,” he said.
Our review has included the input of air traffic controllers and pilots at hazard identification workshops over the past fortnight.
“Unfortunately this process has led to media speculation that a reversal of the changes is imminent,” Mr Smith said.
“No such decision has been taken”.
“The Airservices Board and management continue to work towards completing the review and responding to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report as a priority.”
The Minister for Transport and Regional Services expects agencies to report back on the review before 19 February 2004 .
Chief Executive Bernie Smith, in the course of reviewing the NAS operation, said today the corporation had identified that certain governance obligations may not have been met in relation to the NAS 2(b) changes introduced in November 2003.
He also said that when the Board approved the changes they were satisfied the changes were safe.
“Nothing has come to light since then which indicates there are unacceptable risks to safety in the system – but improvements are and will always be considered,” he said.
Our review has included the input of air traffic controllers and pilots at hazard identification workshops over the past fortnight.
“Unfortunately this process has led to media speculation that a reversal of the changes is imminent,” Mr Smith said.
“No such decision has been taken”.
“The Airservices Board and management continue to work towards completing the review and responding to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report as a priority.”
The Minister for Transport and Regional Services expects agencies to report back on the review before 19 February 2004 .
Sounds like a face saving exercise to me. Don’t expect them to say they are rolling it back. Too many egos will be bruised if that happens. As long as they re-establish “C” airspace around primary airports and non-radar primary airports that correspond to the decent profile of commercial jet transports and put the frequencies back on the charts, then I will be happy.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litigation Ahoy!
"certain governance obligations" = spin doctor speak for uh oh!
The rumour is that the Board of AsA of which Bernie is a member and also CEO of AsA, were told by the OOLC of AsA (Office of Legal Counsel) that if there is an accident under NAS, they will go to gaol. The Board is legally liable, particularly as they have received expert advice about limitations of NAS.
Stay tuned for more announcements.
The rumour is that the Board of AsA of which Bernie is a member and also CEO of AsA, were told by the OOLC of AsA (Office of Legal Counsel) that if there is an accident under NAS, they will go to gaol. The Board is legally liable, particularly as they have received expert advice about limitations of NAS.
Stay tuned for more announcements.
No, they spin doctors paid millions will never admit that they will roll it back. They will create the required changes (E to C) but they will be blended into a reform package with other changes as a cover.
Yes, minister.
Yes, minister.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBT and I discussed it PM stylez and it appears he misunderstood my intentions. He did apologise and it takes a bit of effort to do that. Hopefully those responsible for NAS take a leaf from his book and do the same but to the tax payer who they have ripped off once again.
